I understand what you are saying, but how does that interpretation relate to the helm question and the arguments against using it?
A consequentialist would probably be for using it (though, again, not a rule utilitarian).
If you're asking about a deontological response, many, like kant, would say that it is categorically forbidden to use a person as a means to an end (even if that end is better for them). this I take to be the "lawful good"response because it is strongly rule based (to the point of inflexibility-not a criticism-I'm mostly kantian myself-it's just a fact) universal and unequivocal.
(i see act utilitarianism to be chaotic good btw because, though it's relativist-a very chaoticesque position- it is still concerned with a good that is universal in the sense that it gives equal worth to all conscious creatures-a requirement for a "good"alignment imo)
To be more precise, how does the interpretation that "The ends justify the means" doesn't necessarily have to be 'Evil' apply to the fact that the means involve forcing an ideological and philosophical change upon a person against their will and turning them into something that is basically anathema to their way of thinking, while completely removing any form of choice they may have on the matter simply to achieve the ends of making them a good person translate into the means not being Evil and needing to be justified by the ends? And further, how does it not lead inexorably to being a slippery slope?
Even if I buy that fundamentally overwriting someone's basic nature against their will with magic such that they have no possibility of resisting or choosing weren't evil BECAUSE the net result is making a 'Good' person (which I don't for a second), once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Basically:
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Of course it should be done for everyone who is Evil. IRL you can argue things like "shades of grey" and "evil is objective" and so on. But this isn't IRL. If someone is capital E evil (rather than merely neutral) then they are a comic book villain whose crimes warrant death, or at the very least drastic magic brain surgery.
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
To be more precise, how does the interpretation that "The ends justify the means" doesn't necessarily have to be 'Evil' apply to the fact that the means involve forcing an ideological and philosophical change upon a person against their will and turning them into something that is basically anathema to their way of thinking, while completely removing any form of choice they may have on the matter simply to achieve the ends of making them a good person translate into the means not being Evil and needing to be justified by the ends? And further, how does it not lead inexorably to being a slippery slope?
Even if I buy that fundamentally overwriting someone's basic nature against their will with magic such that they have no possibility of resisting or choosing weren't evil BECAUSE the net result is making a 'Good' person (which I don't for a second), once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Basically:
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
It's not so much about making good people but maximizing "the good".
Anyway, you're on to an excellent critique of (some versions) of consequentalism. You recognize the importance of agency which is often completely ignored (though preference and rule utilitarianism are exceptions).
To answer your question, nothing.
One thing: you have to separate the normative questions from the practical (application). This is the difference between "normative ethics"and "applied ethics"
the relevant normative question is: should we use the helm on someone who is Truly evil.
Normative issues are theoretical.they are many to guide behavior
when we start talking about things like: how do we prevent abuse; how do we know if someone is Really evil and therefore worthy of reprogramming, etc, we are changing the subject. We are discussing application. one exception is stated maxim: "ought implies can." Fire example, we couldn't seriously require "evil" people in the real world to wear a helm of alignment for a number of reasons including the fact that they ain't exist and nobody can make one(though I'm coldly reminded of the comments re: lobotomies)
To be more precise, how does the interpretation that "The ends justify the means" doesn't necessarily have to be 'Evil' apply to the fact that the means involve forcing an ideological and philosophical change upon a person against their will and turning them into something that is basically anathema to their way of thinking, while completely removing any form of choice they may have on the matter simply to achieve the ends of making them a good person translate into the means not being Evil and needing to be justified by the ends? And further, how does it not lead inexorably to being a slippery slope?
Even if I buy that fundamentally overwriting someone's basic nature against their will with magic such that they have no possibility of resisting or choosing weren't evil BECAUSE the net result is making a 'Good' person (which I don't for a second), once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Basically:
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Of course it should be done for everyone who is Evil. IRL you can argue things like "shades of grey" and "evil is objective" and so on. But this isn't IRL. If someone is capital E evil (rather than merely neutral) then they are a comic book villain whose crimes warrant death, or at the very least drastic magic brain surgery.
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
This.
Remember also that in the D&D setting not only are ethics and alignment discrete "things" which can be detected via magic, but individuals can be of enormous power compared to in our world.
Would it be good for your level 1 NG bard with good bluff trick a petty thief or thug (NE?) into wearing a HoOA? I doubt it. But how about a conquering demilich, fallen diva or dark solar..? Their "evilness" is easily confirmed, they are incredibly difficult to kill, and their capacity for destruction is immense, yet their power to do good would be similarly huge.
Oh, as for the slippery slope HoOA aren't common or easy to make (in most editions).
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
It makes a great speech. I'm not sure it has much practical application.
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
To be more precise, how does the interpretation that "The ends justify the means" doesn't necessarily have to be 'Evil' apply to the fact that the means involve forcing an ideological and philosophical change upon a person against their will and turning them into something that is basically anathema to their way of thinking, while completely removing any form of choice they may have on the matter
Because the only options THEY are giving you are: 1. Stand aside and let them commit atrocities. 2. Perform horrific brain surgery on them with magic to make them "good" 3. Kill them.
1 is the most evil choice. 2 and 3 are sorta balanced, with arguments that can be made for either being better. So you, the "good person" must choose something horribly distasteful (be it killing or magical brain modification) that is the least evil of the choices that the Evil person permits you to make with their choice to be evil.
If anything, YOU are the victim of the evil person who, through their choices are hampering your free will and, and limit your choices in life and forcing you to choose between standing aside and watching from the sidelines as they go on to commit atrocities... or stopping them via something distasteful that will traumatize you (killing them, or forcing the HOOA on them)
Also Freedom of choice =! freedom from suffering the consequences of your choices.
BTW, the biggest thing about the HOOA is that it requires for alignment to be a real force of reality and an absolute.
A HOOA would turn an evil person good, and a good person evil. How can such a device work? By flipping the magical "goodness" or "evilness" magical essence that makes up your soul.
But if we accept morality to actually have complexities than how can such a device even exist? Only possible way is for an "evil" god to craft a sentient artifact that goes through a person's mind and rewrites a person's mind to make them a paragon of their god's view. For a "good" god to do the same. And then to merge the two artifacts in such a way that the new artifact will "decide" which category a person falls into and then use the appropriate (opposite) function.
I personally much prefer to ban alignment and instead of HOOA have things like, say, a cursed talisman through which demons/angels can whisper in your mind and slowly turning you to the views of a _specific_ god (and remember, the evil gods aren't one big happy family)
... actually a setting where every god's holy symbol does that would be pretty boss.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
It makes a great speech. I'm not sure it has much practical application.
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
what is meant by "freedom?" To follow whatever impulse strikes ones fancy? we can do that.
those examples are not "sanctioned" and you're right: we're glad they aren't. But why are we glad? Is it all socialization? Are we merely glad because we've been "programmed" to be glad by our upbringing? Had we grown up in a completely different society--say one that condoned murder and "fire" yelling, etc. would we accept all of those societal norms like we accept their prohibition?
There is a "practical"consideration, of course. We could't feel safe and conduct "business as usual" in a society that condoned murder. But beyond that we debate whether a given law is just; we complain about this or that arbitrary restriction or tax; we have strong opinions about who should be able to marry; we contemplate whether we have an obligation to protect the environment or minority rights. But by what standard? The standard of a given society has already been set by policy if not law, so it can't be that.
we can't argue that something is right or wrong by referring to the status quo. We can still ask, "is it right?"
Equally important, we must take care that we are all talking about the same thing. This talk about freedom, at least as I understand mr.spyders use of the term, has more to do with brainwashing or forcible violation of ones person (say by the use of surgery if we're using real world examples) than government sanction. I don't think anybody is arguing for anarchy.
once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Of course it should be done for everyone who is Evil. IRL you can argue things like "shades of grey" and "evil is objective" and so on. But this isn't IRL. If someone is capital E evil (rather than merely neutral) then they are a comic book villain whose crimes warrant death, or at the very least drastic magic brain surgery.
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
First and foremost, I completely disagree.
If you could (hypothetically) completely eradicate all evil, you would merely move the bar on what was considered evil. With extremes like Good and Evil (which are essentially polar opposites) and the fact that every single person in the world has a slightly different perspective than every single other person, removal of EVIL only narrows the spectrum. You can't eliminate the spectrum entirely without eliminating all people. So the more evil you get rid of, the less evil someone needs to be to be considered evil. Eventually it isn't evil at all, it is differences of opinion.
Then you need to decide if Evil action is the criteria, or evil intent. What about good intentions that ultimately end in evil outcomes? Or what about Good outcomes that arise as a result of evil actions?
Someone once said 'You can not have Good without knowledge of evil' in the same way that you can't have light without shadows.
Also, since you brought in 'comic' evil, how many Comic book villians have turned 'Good' or in some way brought about good things from their evil? Quite a few I am thinking.
And finally, if you remove someone's free will to choose good or evil, isn't that evil in itself? I would think so.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
It makes a great speech. I'm not sure it has much practical application.
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
On the contrary. You are free to murder and steal. You just have to face consequences associated with those actions. But the CHOICE to do these things is yours to make freely. The quote is about censuring of ideas and choices, not preventing actions or their consequences.
once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Of course it should be done for everyone who is Evil. IRL you can argue things like "shades of grey" and "evil is objective" and so on. But this isn't IRL. If someone is capital E evil (rather than merely neutral) then they are a comic book villain whose crimes warrant death, or at the very least drastic magic brain surgery.
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
First and foremost, I completely disagree.
If you could (hypothetically) completely eradicate all evil, you would merely move the bar on what was considered evil. With extremes like Good and Evil (which are essentially polar opposites) and the fact that every single person in the world has a slightly different perspective than every single other person, removal of EVIL only narrows the spectrum. You can't eliminate the spectrum entirely without eliminating all people. So the more evil you get rid of, the less evil someone needs to be to be considered evil. Eventually it isn't evil at all, it is differences of opinion.
Then you need to decide if Evil action is the criteria, or evil intent. What about good intentions that ultimately end in evil outcomes? Or what about Good outcomes that arise as a result of evil actions?
Someone once said 'You can not have Good without knowledge of evil' in the same way that you can't have light without shadows.
Also, since you brought in 'comic' evil, how many Comic book villians have turned 'Good' or in some way brought about good things from their evil? Quite a few I am thinking.
And finally, if you remove someone's free will to choose good or evil, isn't that evil in itself? I would think so.
How about you actually read something before you completely disagree with it? Everything you said: 1. Assumes I have been describing my IRL views on morality (I explicitly stated that D&D universe is different) and is counter arguing against it as if it is MY VIEWS when I explicitly said it is a TERRIBLE system and I oppose what it implies about morality. 2. Assuming that morality is relative and follows IRL trends. Rather than evil being a magical force of reality as it is in the alignment system. Your argument is based entirely on real life rather than the fictional reality of D&D.
As a result of this you are contradicting yourself. First you say you completely disagree with my argument (so, you believe that the alignment system is a perfectly accurate representation of reality, gotcha), then you go into depth about how morality works IRL in your opinion (completely contradictory to how it works in D&D)
In D&D land, if you destroy all evil one of two things will happen: 1. The universal force that is evil will remain intact and still try to seep into the universe and corrupt individuals. (note, this assumes you have actually killed off all the evil gods AND destroyed the all the planes of evil (hells) and all the demons/devils which spontaneously form out of the evil energy permeating the hells) 2. The universal force that is evil will be destroyed and everyone would be good, because good is not a relative thing.
Heck, this is a 2e game and under 1st and 2nd edition in DnD changing your alignment was such a traumatic (to your soul's magical composition) event that you lost a huge chunk of XP as a result. Similar to how you lose XP in the process of resurrection.
Of course it should be done for everyone who is Evil.
I 100% disagree with this statement. Please see my previous statements on this. Aside from the whole issue of the sliding scale, there is the very definite and real issue of free will. Turning everyone from Evil to good against their will is evil in my view point. Making rules and guidelines to prevent or minimize consequences to the general population is a far cry difference from force subsuming the population’s freedom to choose. The former is society. The latter is subjugation.
Plus it completely removes the possibilities of good outcomes from evil acts. And it pretty much stagnates invention as most significant advances have come out of some form of adversity.
IRL you can argue things like "shades of grey" and "evil is objective" and so on. But this isn't IRL.
The gaming world is an attempt to put the real world into terms that can be discussed, debated and played in, in some quantifiable and controllable way. It is INTENDED to be a mirror of real life. Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it even close? Not in my view. Are the PLAYERS who are playing there using their own experiences, views and ethics to play their characters in the game Absolutely! Hence any discussion about the game ethics HAS to have some basis in reality.
If someone is capital E evil (rather than merely neutral) then they are a comic book villain whose crimes warrant death, or at the very least drastic magic brain surgery.
100% disagree with this statement. 1000000%. If you believe that people who act like comic book villains are the greatest threat and the most Evil people on the planet, I’d disagree with you. I’d also disagree that anyone who doesn’t have the same ethics (alignment) as me should be lobotomized (essentially).
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
Absolutely let’s take every single aspect of the game-scape and claim that ‘If this isn’t reality than none of it can be’. Again, literature and art and gaming and imagination are all part of the human condition. We all play and perceive and view and intemperate based on our own perspectives. We filter and translate via these same perspectives. It is therefore possible to take something like Star Wars or Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Dungeons and Dragons and apply lessons learned and ethics and philosophy to the real world, even though the source material is a fantasy realm.
I apologize that my previous statement didn’t delineate the exact nature of how or what I disagreed with your point of view. Next time I will be sure to be more specific.
Unless your playing evil, you know what it going to happen from the get go. Why bother picking her up ?
If I needed a Cleric I would have no problem lobotomizing her. She is evil, should have seen it coming. Or if I played evil...she is a hoot. But my conscious would be just fine as I knew when I was done with her , I could just take it off and kick her to the curb. Maybe a little battered, but alive and still evil. She could write it off as a bad trip and move on.
Your killing things left and right in this game , stealing, pickpocketing ,trying to survive some unknown plot on your life. And your worried about some skinny dark elf who probably ate babies like popcorn ? Sure she is trying to reform ( I guess ) Maybe it's part of her penance ?
I may be good...but when my butt is on the line..not that good.
@ogreb Most of us try not to play the game as if we already know everything that's going to happen. Our charname has no reasonable way of knowing that Viconia is evil until spending time with her.
Like the whole drow elf thing doesn't give it away ?
I am believer they should have worked on Viconia, given her an actual path for redemption . One that would allow her alignment to truly change.
Anybody could easily tell what she was. Evil.
Don't get me wrong I like her. But the distinction of alignment of NPCs is easy to tell. As soon as they open their mouths. There is little grey in this game.
If your really RPing this game. You already know all drow are evil ( except Drizzt ). All of Faerun has heard of the drow..and maybe Drizzt.
And your surprised to find out she is evil ? huh ?
And don't forget there is a spell called Know Alignment.
The ethical thing to do , as a good party. Would to be cast Know Alignment...see that she is evil, and keep on walking.
Really? I'd think that it would be much more fun for Edwin if Minsc were to actually find her broken corpse and have been powerless to stop it from happening. Maybe with a crow pecking at her gizzards and worms crawling out of her eye sockets?
Besides, just because he turns evil, doesn't mean that he will willingly participate in the murder of the person he has sworn to protect.
Like the whole drow elf thing doesn't give it away ?
I am believer they should have worked on Viconia, given her an actual path for redemption . One that would allow her alignment to truly change.
Anybody could easily tell what she was. Evil.
Don't get me wrong I like her. But the distinction of alignment of NPCs is easy to tell. As soon as they open their mouths. There is little grey in this game.
If your really RPing this game. You already know all drow are evil ( except Drizzt ). All of Faerun has heard of the drow..and maybe Drizzt.
And your surprised to find out she is evil ? huh ?
And don't forget there is a spell called Know Alignment.
The ethical thing to do , as a good party. Would to be cast Know Alignment...see that she is evil, and keep on walking.
It is funny, when I first meet her she claims to be different from the other drow, she stopped worshipping lolth and now worships a surfacer goddess, Shar. So I should have no reason to fear her now.
This is hilarious because according to books found in the game: In the begining there was nothing, then god, AO, came from the nothing. Then he seperated light from darkness creating selune and shar, light and dark. The beutiful twin sister goddesses thought themselves as two parts of one being at that time. At that time also 13 shadvari, lords of shadow, existed in the void, nobody knows whether they came from another reality or were born of the shadow. Shar and Selune went on to create the universe, chauntra, her body is the firmanent, although she contracted her vastness to just abeir-toril and petitioned her mothers, shar and selune, to give her heat to bear life. Selune said yes, shar said no. The two started to fight over it, their battle birthed the gods of war, famine, (some other one, poison i think), etc. Then during the battle selune crippled herself reaching into a plane of great fire and ripping out a large chunk of essence of fire and placing it in the sky for chauntra to bear life.
The weakened selune was starting to lose, and so she tore the essence of magic from her body and hurled it at shar, it passed through shar tearing out an equal portion of divine essence and becoming the goddess of magic mystryl. Mystryl favored her first mother, selune over her second mother, shar (their wording not mine). While weaker, selune now had allies. Shar vows vengeance and that she will one day destroy all life like she always wanted. Also she goes on to create the shadow weave and ally with the shadvari.
So... yea, wonderful "surface goddess" she chose to worship there.
Really? I'd think that it would be much more fun for Edwin if Minsc were to actually find her broken corpse and have been powerless to stop it from happening. Maybe with a crow pecking at her gizzards and worms crawling out of her eye sockets?
Besides, just because he turns evil, doesn't mean that he will willingly participate in the murder of the person he has sworn to protect.
Since he's chaotic good he would become Lawful evil. I think the lawful part would stop him from wanting to go forward with the murder (seeing how as you said he has sworn to protect her).
Really? I'd think that it would be much more fun for Edwin if Minsc were to actually find her broken corpse and have been powerless to stop it from happening. Maybe with a crow pecking at her gizzards and worms crawling out of her eye sockets?
Besides, just because he turns evil, doesn't mean that he will willingly participate in the murder of the person he has sworn to protect.
Since he's chaotic good he would become Lawful evil. I think the lawful part would stop him from wanting to go forward with the murder (seeing how as you said he has sworn to protect her).
But he'd still be pretty dumb, so Edwin might be able to convince him to do it anyway.
Really? I'd think that it would be much more fun for Edwin if Minsc were to actually find her broken corpse and have been powerless to stop it from happening. Maybe with a crow pecking at her gizzards and worms crawling out of her eye sockets?
Besides, just because he turns evil, doesn't mean that he will willingly participate in the murder of the person he has sworn to protect.
Since he's chaotic good he would become Lawful evil. I think the lawful part would stop him from wanting to go forward with the murder (seeing how as you said he has sworn to protect her).
But he'd still be pretty dumb, so Edwin might be able to convince him to do it anyway.
The helm wouldn't work on boo though and we all know boo is where Minsc really gets his advice
Why wouldn't the helmet work on Boo? Does he have some magic power to resist the magic of the helm (pictures a miniature, giant space hamster wearing the helmet)?
Why wouldn't the helmet work on Boo? Does he have some magic power to resist the magic of the helm (pictures a miniature, giant space hamster wearing the helmet)?
If Boo is wearing the helmet, even Minsc would recognize the change and be furious at whoever replaced or cursed his favorite miniature giant space hamster.
If Minsc is wearing the helmet, Boo will be telling him to do the right thing...
...unless, of course, Minsc is insane and hears what he wants from Boo in which case Boo might go from advising righteous butt-kickings while Minsc is CG to advising whatever a LE space hamster would suggest (probably looking out for number 1 above all else?).
Not sure how that would shake out but it would be fun to DM.
Comments
If you're asking about a deontological response, many, like kant, would say that it is categorically forbidden to use a person as a means to an end (even if that end is better for them). this I take to be the "lawful good"response because it is strongly rule based (to the point of inflexibility-not a criticism-I'm mostly kantian myself-it's just a fact) universal and unequivocal.
(i see act utilitarianism to be chaotic good btw because, though it's relativist-a very chaoticesque position- it is still concerned with a good that is universal in the sense that it gives equal worth to all conscious creatures-a requirement for a "good"alignment imo)
Even if I buy that fundamentally overwriting someone's basic nature against their will with magic such that they have no possibility of resisting or choosing weren't evil BECAUSE the net result is making a 'Good' person (which I don't for a second), once it is done to one person who is to say it can't and shouldn't be done for everyone that is Evil? For that matter, maybe it should be done for everyone who "I think" is evil merely because they don't agree with my way of seeing things?
Basically:
This is part of the problem with alignment, but if you accept alignment's existence in the game world then you need to accept the fundamental changes that makes to ethics. Just like how the FACT that the afterlife exists (as can be verified by anyone casting a scry, speak with dead, gate, or raise dead) drastically changes ethics. At least, it SHOULD drastically change ethics but for some reason nobody seems to notice
It's not so much about making good people but maximizing "the good".
Anyway, you're on to an excellent critique of (some versions) of consequentalism. You recognize the importance of agency which is often completely ignored (though preference and rule utilitarianism are exceptions).
To answer your question, nothing.
One thing: you have to separate the normative questions from the practical (application). This is the difference between "normative ethics"and "applied ethics"
the relevant normative question is: should we use the helm on someone who is Truly evil.
Normative issues are theoretical.they are many to guide behavior
when we start talking about things like: how do we prevent abuse; how do we know if someone is Really evil and therefore worthy of reprogramming, etc, we are changing the subject. We are discussing application. one exception is stated maxim: "ought implies can." Fire example, we couldn't seriously require "evil" people in the real world to wear a helm of alignment for a number of reasons including the fact that they ain't exist and nobody can make one(though I'm coldly reminded of the comments re: lobotomies)
Remember also that in the D&D setting not only are ethics and alignment discrete "things" which can be detected via magic, but individuals can be of enormous power compared to in our world.
Would it be good for your level 1 NG bard with good bluff trick a petty thief or thug (NE?) into wearing a HoOA? I doubt it.
But how about a conquering demilich, fallen diva or dark solar..? Their "evilness" is easily confirmed, they are incredibly difficult to kill, and their capacity for destruction is immense, yet their power to do good would be similarly huge.
Oh, as for the slippery slope HoOA aren't common or easy to make (in most editions).
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
A HOOA would turn an evil person good, and a good person evil. How can such a device work? By flipping the magical "goodness" or "evilness" magical essence that makes up your soul.
But if we accept morality to actually have complexities than how can such a device even exist? Only possible way is for an "evil" god to craft a sentient artifact that goes through a person's mind and rewrites a person's mind to make them a paragon of their god's view. For a "good" god to do the same. And then to merge the two artifacts in such a way that the new artifact will "decide" which category a person falls into and then use the appropriate (opposite) function.
I personally much prefer to ban alignment and instead of HOOA have things like, say, a cursed talisman through which demons/angels can whisper in your mind and slowly turning you to the views of a _specific_ god (and remember, the evil gods aren't one big happy family)
... actually a setting where every god's holy symbol does that would be pretty boss.
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
what is meant by "freedom?" To follow whatever impulse strikes ones fancy? we can do that.
those examples are not "sanctioned" and you're right: we're glad they aren't. But why are we glad? Is it all socialization? Are we merely glad because we've been "programmed" to be glad by our upbringing? Had we grown up in a completely different society--say one that condoned murder and "fire" yelling, etc. would we accept all of those societal norms like we accept their prohibition?
There is a "practical"consideration, of course. We could't feel safe and conduct "business as usual" in a society that condoned murder. But beyond that we debate whether a given law is just; we complain about this or that arbitrary restriction or tax; we have strong opinions about who should be able to marry; we contemplate whether we have an obligation to protect the environment or minority rights. But by what standard? The standard of a given society has already been set by policy if not law, so it can't be that.
we can't argue that something is right or wrong by referring to the status quo. We can still ask, "is it right?"
Equally important, we must take care that we are all talking about the same thing. This talk about freedom, at least as I understand mr.spyders use of the term, has more to do with brainwashing or forcible violation of ones person (say by the use of surgery if we're using real world examples) than government sanction. I don't think anybody is arguing for anarchy.
If you could (hypothetically) completely eradicate all evil, you would merely move the bar on what was considered evil. With extremes like Good and Evil (which are essentially polar opposites) and the fact that every single person in the world has a slightly different perspective than every single other person, removal of EVIL only narrows the spectrum. You can't eliminate the spectrum entirely without eliminating all people. So the more evil you get rid of, the less evil someone needs to be to be considered evil. Eventually it isn't evil at all, it is differences of opinion.
Then you need to decide if Evil action is the criteria, or evil intent. What about good intentions that ultimately end in evil outcomes? Or what about Good outcomes that arise as a result of evil actions?
Someone once said 'You can not have Good without knowledge of evil' in the same way that you can't have light without shadows.
Also, since you brought in 'comic' evil, how many Comic book villians have turned 'Good' or in some way brought about good things from their evil? Quite a few I am thinking.
And finally, if you remove someone's free will to choose good or evil, isn't that evil in itself? I would think so.
I'm not free to murder or assault people. I'm not free to steal. I'm not free to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire". I'm not free to drink and drive. And there are many more ways in which my freedom is restricted.
Most people, myself included, believe that these restrictions on my freedom are a good thing. The alternative, where everyone has total freedom, is anarchy. And few people would really want that.
A lot of people have the idea that adding more restrictions to freedom is the start of a slippery slope to government oppression. They are wrong because we are already on that slipperly slope. Society as a whole decides how far down that slipperly slope we want to be.
One other point to bear in mind is that society as a whole doesn't have a fixed view of where the best place to be is - it's view changes over time. Not so very long ago it was acceptable to keep black slaves. And much more recently it was acceptable to oppress black people. Today we believe in equality. Tomorrow society may put the boundary between right and wrong in a very different place.
On the contrary. You are free to murder and steal. You just have to face consequences associated with those actions. But the CHOICE to do these things is yours to make freely. The quote is about censuring of ideas and choices, not preventing actions or their consequences.
Everything you said:
1. Assumes I have been describing my IRL views on morality (I explicitly stated that D&D universe is different) and is counter arguing against it as if it is MY VIEWS when I explicitly said it is a TERRIBLE system and I oppose what it implies about morality.
2. Assuming that morality is relative and follows IRL trends. Rather than evil being a magical force of reality as it is in the alignment system. Your argument is based entirely on real life rather than the fictional reality of D&D.
As a result of this you are contradicting yourself. First you say you completely disagree with my argument (so, you believe that the alignment system is a perfectly accurate representation of reality, gotcha), then you go into depth about how morality works IRL in your opinion (completely contradictory to how it works in D&D)
In D&D land, if you destroy all evil one of two things will happen:
1. The universal force that is evil will remain intact and still try to seep into the universe and corrupt individuals. (note, this assumes you have actually killed off all the evil gods AND destroyed the all the planes of evil (hells) and all the demons/devils which spontaneously form out of the evil energy permeating the hells)
2. The universal force that is evil will be destroyed and everyone would be good, because good is not a relative thing.
Heck, this is a 2e game and under 1st and 2nd edition in DnD changing your alignment was such a traumatic (to your soul's magical composition) event that you lost a huge chunk of XP as a result. Similar to how you lose XP in the process of resurrection.
Plus it completely removes the possibilities of good outcomes from evil acts. And it pretty much stagnates invention as most significant advances have come out of some form of adversity. The gaming world is an attempt to put the real world into terms that can be discussed, debated and played in, in some quantifiable and controllable way. It is INTENDED to be a mirror of real life. Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it even close? Not in my view. Are the PLAYERS who are playing there using their own experiences, views and ethics to play their characters in the game Absolutely! Hence any discussion about the game ethics HAS to have some basis in reality. 100% disagree with this statement. 1000000%. If you believe that people who act like comic book villains are the greatest threat and the most Evil people on the planet, I’d disagree with you. I’d also disagree that anyone who doesn’t have the same ethics (alignment) as me should be lobotomized (essentially). Absolutely let’s take every single aspect of the game-scape and claim that ‘If this isn’t reality than none of it can be’. Again, literature and art and gaming and imagination are all part of the human condition. We all play and perceive and view and intemperate based on our own perspectives. We filter and translate via these same perspectives. It is therefore possible to take something like Star Wars or Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Dungeons and Dragons and apply lessons learned and ethics and philosophy to the real world, even though the source material is a fantasy realm.
I apologize that my previous statement didn’t delineate the exact nature of how or what I disagreed with your point of view. Next time I will be sure to be more specific.
Why bother picking her up ?
If I needed a Cleric I would have no problem lobotomizing her. She is evil, should have seen it coming.
Or if I played evil...she is a hoot.
But my conscious would be just fine as I knew when I was done with her , I could just take it off and kick her to the curb. Maybe a little battered, but alive and still evil.
She could write it off as a bad trip and move on.
Your killing things left and right in this game , stealing, pickpocketing ,trying to survive some unknown plot on your life. And your worried about some skinny dark elf who probably ate babies like popcorn ?
Sure she is trying to reform ( I guess )
Maybe it's part of her penance ?
I may be good...but when my butt is on the line..not that good.
No ethical problem here.
I am believer they should have worked on Viconia, given her an actual path for redemption .
One that would allow her alignment to truly change.
Anybody could easily tell what she was. Evil.
Don't get me wrong I like her. But the distinction of alignment of NPCs is easy to tell. As soon as they open their mouths.
There is little grey in this game.
If your really RPing this game. You already know all drow are evil ( except Drizzt ). All of Faerun has heard of the drow..and maybe Drizzt.
And your surprised to find out she is evil ? huh ?
And don't forget there is a spell called Know Alignment.
The ethical thing to do , as a good party. Would to be cast Know Alignment...see that she is evil, and keep on walking.
Besides, just because he turns evil, doesn't mean that he will willingly participate in the murder of the person he has sworn to protect.
This is hilarious because according to books found in the game:
In the begining there was nothing, then god, AO, came from the nothing. Then he seperated light from darkness creating selune and shar, light and dark. The beutiful twin sister goddesses thought themselves as two parts of one being at that time. At that time also 13 shadvari, lords of shadow, existed in the void, nobody knows whether they came from another reality or were born of the shadow.
Shar and Selune went on to create the universe, chauntra, her body is the firmanent, although she contracted her vastness to just abeir-toril and petitioned her mothers, shar and selune, to give her heat to bear life. Selune said yes, shar said no. The two started to fight over it, their battle birthed the gods of war, famine, (some other one, poison i think), etc. Then during the battle selune crippled herself reaching into a plane of great fire and ripping out a large chunk of essence of fire and placing it in the sky for chauntra to bear life.
The weakened selune was starting to lose, and so she tore the essence of magic from her body and hurled it at shar, it passed through shar tearing out an equal portion of divine essence and becoming the goddess of magic mystryl. Mystryl favored her first mother, selune over her second mother, shar (their wording not mine). While weaker, selune now had allies. Shar vows vengeance and that she will one day destroy all life like she always wanted. Also she goes on to create the shadow weave and ally with the shadvari.
So... yea, wonderful "surface goddess" she chose to worship there.
If Boo is wearing the helmet, even Minsc would recognize the change and be furious at whoever replaced or cursed his favorite miniature giant space hamster.
If Minsc is wearing the helmet, Boo will be telling him to do the right thing...
...unless, of course, Minsc is insane and hears what he wants from Boo in which case Boo might go from advising righteous butt-kickings while Minsc is CG to advising whatever a LE space hamster would suggest (probably looking out for number 1 above all else?).
Not sure how that would shake out but it would be fun to DM.